check_pricing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Look up' implies a read, but nothing states auth requirements, whether pricing is cached/live, or what data comes back; for a zero-annotation tool this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral context is missing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-optional-param lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally workable. However, with no annotations it should have described the return shape (e.g., price fields/currency) and any auth or scope constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two optional parameters (model, action) and their defaults are already documented. The description only reinforces the 'luma model line' default context, adding little beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Look up RunAPI pricing for the luma model line' tells an agent exactly what it retrieves and for which model family. It is distinguishable from siblings like login/get_task/modify_video, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent is not told when this should be called relative to modify_video or get_task, nor whether it needs to log in first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.